Social Work Practice Research for the Twenty-First Century

Anne E. Fortune, Philip McCallion, Katharine Briar-Lawson, Anne Fortune, Philip McCallion, Katharine Briar-Lawson

• Publisher: Columbia University Press
• Year: 2010
• Topic: Social Sciences
• eBook ISBN:
  9780231512640
• Subtopic: Social Science Research & Methodology
• Index: Social Sciences

Social work professionals must demonstrate their effectiveness to legislators and governments, not to mention clients and incoming practitioners. A thorough evaluation of the activities, ethics, and outcomes of social work practice is critical to maintaining investment and interest in the profession and improving the lives of underserved populations.

Incorporating the concerns of a new century into a consideration of models for practice research, this volume builds on the visionary work of William J. Reid (1928-2003) who transformed social work research through empirically based and task-centered approaches-and, more recently, synthesized intervention knowledge for framing future study. This collection reviews the task-centered model and other contemporary Evidence-Based Practice models for working with individuals, families, groups, communities, and organizations. Essays demonstrate the value of these pragmatic approaches in the United States and international settings. Contributors summarize state-of-the-art methods in several key fields of service, including children and families, aging, substance abuse, and mental health. They also evaluate the research movement itself, outlining an agenda for today's sociopolitical landscape and the profession. This volume inspires practice research to prioritize evidence as a base for the profession.

PART ONE

|

A Historical Mapping of Social Work Practice Research

1	|	Critical Infrastructures for Social Work Practice Research
		Pondering the Past, Framing the Future

Ronald A. Feldman

THIS CHAPTER FOCUSES ON critical infrastructures that have shaped the current status of social work practice research and, in turn, will shape the course of future research. It sets forth a partial and selective perspective that no doubt will be augmented and complemented by the views of others. Additional relevant infrastructures are not examined here due to space constraints; they are considered in substantial detail in a more comprehensive companion paper (Feldman 2005). Ultimately, an authoritative history of social work research must examine all facets of the research enterprise and synthesize the perspectives of multiple observers.

The Practice Research Enterprise

The most determinate factor in the development of meaningful practice research is the extent to which critical infrastructures are created to promote and sustain the research enterprise over the long run. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to fully comprehend the complexities of practice research without recognizing its three central and interrelated aspects: research development, research dissemination, and research utilization. Each is critical to the advancement of social work practice. Indeed, the development of research-based knowledge is of little consequence if it is not followed by effective dissemination and utilization. Although social work has made substantial strides in research development and, to some extent, in research dissemination over the years, relatively few gains have been made in actual utilization by practitioners. In its own right, the latter topic merits heightened attention on the part of social work scholars.

In considering research development, three critical infrastructures are reviewed here: landmark reports and task forces; significant educational trends; and major associational structures. Other relevant, but less determinate, infrastructures discussed elsewhere include important conferences and meetings; research centers and institutes established at schools of social work; research programs conducted at social work agencies; international research consortiums and collaborations; public and private funding sources for research; and prestigious awards and prizes for exemplary research (cf. Feldman 2005).

In considering research dissemination, one major infrastructure will be examined in particular detail, namely, professional journals and books. Other dissemination infrastructures are discussed elsewhere (Feldman 2005) and include conferences and reports; electronic dissemination mechanisms; and agency-based, school-based, and associational research dissemination efforts. Research utilization is considered here only briefly.

Research Development

Social work research suffers from a fundamental paradox. The dimensions and importance of the paradox will become increasingly evident as the following infrastructures are examined.

Landmark Reports and Task Forces

Since the very inception of social work, important new directions for the profession have been galvanized by landmark reports and task forces. These include, of course, the classic Flexner Report delivered ninety years ago at a meeting of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections (Flexner 1915) and, in later years, the Tufts Report issued under the aegis of the Russell Sage Foundation (Tufts 1923) and seminal reports about social work education such as those by Hollis and Taylor (1951) and Boehm (1959). However, landmark reports and task forces are more often the exception than the rule. Far more numerous are the countless reports that come to naught. Yet even these can inform our understanding of the formidable challenges that beset efforts to advance social work research.

An example is a promising report issued in 1989 by a Task Force on the Future of Social Work Education, formed by the National Association of Deans and Directors of Social Work Schools (NADD). Titled “Proposal for a Comprehensive Study of Social Work Education,” the report asserted that “the time is nigh for social work to conduct a comprehensive and in-depth study of the present state and future needs of social work education” (National Association of Deans and Directors 1989:4).¹ The task force members recommended that a central concern be “the nature of the knowledge base of social work.” They observed that “it will be useful to articulate the extent to which social work knowledge should be endogenous (that is, generated primarily within the profession) or exogenous (that is, generated outside of the social work profession, but adapted or modified for social work education and practice)” (Ibid. 21). The report especially emphasized the importance of examining “the range and quality of social work scholarship and the extent to which the scholarly literature is incorporated into professional training” (Ibid. 21). Anticipating that such a study would cost slightly more than $1 million, NADD then decided to form a second task force to seek funds to implement it. However, that task force faltered and a unique opportunity to strengthen and refine social work research failed to materialize.

In sharp contrast, a particularly influential report was issued in 1991 by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Task Force on Social Work Research.² That task force directly addressed many of the extant challenges to practice research in social work and, more important, yielded unprecedented results in advancing social work research. Declaring that a “crisis” existed, the report’s authors forcefully asserted:

• There is a paucity of social work research and researchers in critical areas of social work practice.
• A critical gap exists between the studies being carried out by researchers in schools of social work and the knowledge needs of social work practitioners and the service agencies in which they work.
• Extant patterns of research dissemination are fragmented and inefficient in getting research-based information to social work practitioners.
• There are critical problems in how research is taught at every level of social work education and, in particular, in social work doctoral programs.
• Existing organizational and funding resources are not sufficient to support research development in social work.
• Few social work researchers are included in the national bodies that determine research priorities and government research policies pertinent to social work practice.

Importantly, these concerns and others articulated in the report also were accompanied by a detailed plan of action that called for:

• An Office of Social Work Mental Health Research Development in NIMH that is responsible for an expanded program of recruitment, research training, and research career development related to mental health research priorities.
• A program of Social Work Research Development Center awards, including flexible funds for research infrastructure development and the support of developmental research projects in mental health.
• A National Institute for the Advancement of Research in Social Work with responsibility for supporting research development throughout the profession in all practice areas with the support of national professional associations in social work.
• A staff position for research development advocacy in NASW and a staff position for research education development in CSWE.
• Improved research education in baccalaureate and master’s degree programs.
• Corresponding changes in the policies and standards for accrediting schools of social work.
• Improved research education in doctoral programs.
• Strengthened research support structures in schools of social work.
• Development of research partnerships between schools of social work and service agencies.

In a subsequent report published eight years later, the chairman of the NIMH Task Force inventoried the impressive progress that had been made (Austin 1999). For instance, NIMH had funded nine research centers at schools of social work in the United States and had sponsored important programs of technical and educational assistance for social work researchers. In 1993 the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research (IASWR) emerged from the task force’s recommendations. The chairman of the NIMH Task Force served on IASWR’s first board of directors and IASWR’s interim director also had been a member of the task force. Regrettably, current data about NIMH funding of social work research are not available. NIMH reportedly no longer publishes funding allocations by awardees’ disciplinary or professional affiliation.

Despite the significant advances stimulated by the report of the NIMH Task Force, certain recommendations remain unrealized. Research training has improved markedly in many doctoral programs, but much less so in others. Neither NASW nor CSWE has yet established a staff position dedicated expressly to the advancement of research for social work practice. Nor has it yet proved possible to secure sufficient congressional support to establish a National Center for Social Work Research at NIH. In this regard and others, social work has yet to attain parity with some allied mental health professions. Since the NIMH Task Force on Social Work Research was formed in 1989 and its report released in 1991, it appears timely for a second NIMH Task Force to be convened and, even more, for social workers to explore the feasibility of similar initiatives at other units of NIH such as the National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA), the National Institute of Aging (NIA), and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).

Significant educational Trends

The last half century has witnessed unprecedented growth in social work education programs. In 1953, for example, the United States had only 53 graduate schools of social work. By 1992, there were 114 graduate programs plus 302 undergraduate programs, a total of 416. Today there are 191 accredited MSW programs and 460 accredited BSW programs—an increase of 63 percent since 1992! Although many, and perhaps most, social workers look favorably upon such rapid expansion of the profession’s educational sector, significant liabilities attend this rate of growth.

From a research development perspective, the nearly unbridled proliferation of educational programs in social work can be regarded favorably only to the extent that it is accompanied by corresponding advances in research productivity and knowledge development. Data regarding the growth of doctoral education in social work are illustrative in this regard. In 1960, for example, only 10 social work doctoral programs existed in the United States. This number grew to 32 in 1980 and 46 in 1993. Today there are 73 doctoral programs. But while the total number of programs has increased steadily, their annual number of graduates has not. Instead, throughout the last three decades the average number of doctorates awarded in social work has remained stable, between roughly 200 and 300 per year. Whereas 243 social work doctorates were awarded in 1992, for instance, there were only 250 in 2002. Hence, while baccalaureate and master’s programs in social work (and, correspondingly, their cumulative numbers of graduates) have proliferated over the years, the average number of doctoral graduates in social work has remained inordinately stable—some would say stagnant—for at least three decades. Moreover, only a fraction of doctoral graduates embark upon careers in education and/or research.

Barring significant shifts in educational policy or unforeseen technological breakthroughs, these trends portend that the present and projected numbers of social work doctoral graduates will be grossly inadequate to staff our profession’s current education and research programs, much less those educational programs that will enter candidacy for CSWE accreditation in the coming years. In fact, if each of the current educational programs were to hire merely one new faculty member per year, the extant supply would still fall far short of demand. Indeed, if only half of the currently existing programs were to hire just a single new faculty member per year, it would be necessary for every doctoral graduate of every annual cohort to pursue a career in social work education. It is unlikely in the extreme that existing programs, on average, will hire only one new faculty member per year. It is absolutely inconceivable that 100 percent of social work doctoral graduates will embark upon academic careers and, if so, that all would have the career commitments and research competencies necessary to become productive practice researchers.

In short, the unprecedented proliferation of social work education programs has not been accompanied by corresponding growth in the number of doctoral graduates required to staff them and to conduct sound research aimed at advancing the knowledge base of social work practice. To the contrary, the educational sector confronts a steadily widening and perhaps irreversible gap between demand and supply for doctoral-...

Table of contents

• Cover 
• Half title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents 
• Preface
• Tribute: William J. Reid: A Personal Remembrance
• Part 1: A Historical Mapping of Social Work Practice Research
• Part 2: Status of Evidence-Based Practice in Selected Areas of Social Work
• Part 3: An Example of Empirical Model Development and Dissemination: The Task-Centered Model
• Part 4: Future Directions
• Index